Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 February 13

< February 12	February 14 >

February 13

File:George Otis Smith.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low quality version of File:George Otis Smith cph.3b21648.jpg —howcheng {chat} 00:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:PlavOrkestar cover of Svijet June 1985.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3b. Stefan2 (talk) 10:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be OK with smaller (lower res) version being used. I just don't know how to make one. As for WP:NFCC#8, I believe the photo illustrates very aptly the differences in 1985 between the band and the rest of the genre, all of which is being discussed in the section. Entries about musical genres and (sub)cultural movements have an important visual component and significantly improve the article.Zvonko (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#3b violation is taken care of. I included a lower res version. As for the claim of violating WP:NFCC#8, I disagree with it vehemently. The image has a strong contextual significance as it conveys the most important part (Plavi Orkestar's success in 1985 through youthful boy band appeal) for the wider promotion of the work in question (New Primitivism).Zvonko (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The magazine cover seems to be used as an illustrative example of the band's success (though this is not even an article about the band, and the article discusses them primarily to say that they are not a good example of New Primitivism), but neither this cover nor this particular magazine article is discussed. That adds up to a pretty obvious NFCC violation. Chick Bowen 03:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Easy Walker!.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 10:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:MarioCardenasGuillen.jpeg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I Dispute the claim that this non free image is not replaceable (WP:NFCC#1), it is of a guy was arrested back in September 2012. and as far as I can tell is still alive and awaiting trial.

There is every likelihood that a free image can be obtained, either from the persons lawyers, friends, family, business associates or colleagues or one could be taken of him arriving or leaving court.

Being hard to get access to a person so as to take a free image is not sufficient reason for using a copyright image.

Secondly the use of this image does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" nor would its deletion "be detrimental to that understanding" so also fails WP:NFCC#8. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 11:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that pictures may exist when he goes to trial (assuming its open doors, of course) means nothing, because they'll probably make it to the press faster than they will freely here. If you really think that it is reasonable that a family member, friend, lawyer, or anyone else will dare (or care) to upload a free picture on Wikipedia, then be my guest. In addition, WP:NFC#UUI allows for non-free images of living people. For example, see Talk:Kim Jong-un/Archive 2#Non-free image of Kim Jong-un are not acceptable: "We do make exceptions from time to time to allow non-free images when a person is imprisoned for life, on the run from the law, or a noted (by secondary sources) recluse." ComputerJA (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I did not address your second point because that is entirely subjective. You can tell me you don't believe it increases readers' understanding of the topic, but I believe it does, so debating that is a waste of time. I would not have added the pictures if I agreed with you. ComputerJA (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of Kim Jong-un as an example rather goes to prove my point, for all the debate about how it won't be possible to get a free image the image on the article File:OfficialPortraitKimJongUn.jpg is a free image, so all those who said a free one cannot be obtained were exactly wrong; so saying it is going to be hard is not enough it is up to you to show that one could not be obtained or created, did you try to obtain a non-free image, if so what avenues did you try ? did you approach the newspapers and ask if they would release one for use on WP ? Why don't you go to the court on the day of the trial and take a picture of him ? As for NFCC#8 you as the uploader need to demonstrate how it "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" and thats it deletion would be "detrimental to that understanding" or it will be deleted as failing that. LGA ^{(was LightGreenApple)} _{talk to me} 02:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is mistagged as a booking photo; it is actually an EFE press agency photo, and thus blatantly fails WP:NFC#UUI #7. Chick Bowen 03:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Zombie Simpsons3.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Article has been deleted, this cannot be kept per policy. Chick Bowen 03:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#1 (can be replaced by text), WP:NFCC#3b (ridiculously high resolution), WP:NFCC#8 (the image is ignored by the text) and WP:NFG (the image is a gallery of two non-free images). Stefan2 (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Coin945 (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#1 - No it can't. Well not easily anyways. A picture does paint a thousand words, after all.--Coin945 (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFCC#3b - this can be easily fixed.--Coin945 (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFCC#8 - no it is not. read the last section of the "Zombie Simpsons vs. The Simpsons" paragraph--Coin945 (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFG - You could argue it is a free derivative work of one non-free image (which happens to be placed twice on a page). Side point, the Digg page the images originally came from cannot be found at the moment.--Coin945 (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not seeing how the use of this copyright image "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" nor how its deletion would "be detrimental to that understanding" (WP:NFCC#8) any help it possibly does provide can be achieved in prose (WP:NFCC#1). LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 19:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Out of This World (Kenny Burrell album).jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Moody's Workshop.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Gothenburg Sweden protest.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan Shishirz (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Mesh.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image is a description of Mesh networking and is replaced by the better quality example: File:NetworkTopology-Mesh.png. Image also shadows another Commons file. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons a different representation showing interlinkages, unlike the alternate image which only contains one nodal point and a loop. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 06:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Quality is extremely low. I can't see a reason not to delete. Chick Bowen 03:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Traveller.pdf

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of permission. Uploader just credits an ebay member. No link to the page it was taken from suggesting they agree. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition to the reasons listed above, the image is practically useless and is extremely poor quality. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.